Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
2d 1168
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
May 1, 1990.
Jack Moreland, Hardwick, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., Eddie Snelling, Jr., William B. Hill, Daryl
Robinson, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jack Moreland, a Georgia state prisoner, filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 against a prison doctor and two wardens. Moreland alleged that the
doctor was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and that the wardens
ignored Moreland's requests for proper medical treatment. Moreland also
timely petitioned the court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP")
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 (1982). A magistrate considered Moreland's
petition and recommended that Moreland's complaint be filed because he
satisfied the financial requirements for IFP status, but the magistrate also
recommended that the complaint be immediately dismissed as frivolous under
section 1915(d). The magistrate found that Moreland's claim was essentially a
medical malpractice claim and that the suit presented little chance of success on
the merits as a civil rights action. The district court adopted the magistrate's
recommendations; we vacate the district court's dismissal of Moreland's
complaint.
2
The federal IFP statute is designed to ensure that all litigants, regardless of
wealth, have reasonable access to the courts. But once a district court grants
leave to proceed IFP, section 1915(d) allows the court to dismiss the complaint
prior to service of process if the court is "satisfied that the action is frivolous or
malicious," 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d), to spare defendants the inconvenience and
expense of answering a meritless complaint. See Phillips v. Mashburn, 746
F.2d 782, 784 (11th Cir.1984); Woodall v. Foti, 648 F.2d 268, 271 (5th Cir.
Unit A 1981). Because section 1915(d) "is a broad grant of discretion to the
courts regarding management of IFP actions," we review the dismissal of
Moreland's actions for abuse of discretion. Harris v. Menendez, 817 F.2d 737,
741 (11th Cir.1987).
The Neitzke Court held that a complaint that fails to state a claim is not
invariably frivolous. Neitzke, 109 S.Ct. at 1832. We accept that it is possible,
although unusual, for a complaint that fails to state a claim to nonetheless have
an arguable basis in law and a fairly good chance of succeeding on its merits.
But a complaint's failure to state a claim is evidence--perhaps even strong
evidence--of its frivolousness; Neitzke says nothing to the contrary.
While the law allows substantial discretion in dismissing actions under the
authority of section 1915(d), if a complaint presents an arguable basis in law
and asserts something other than fanciful factual allegations, the district court
may not dismiss an action until the court has conducted a "sufficient inquiry" to
determine whether the plaintiff's realistic chances of ultimate success are slight.
Menendez, 817 F.2d at 740. Here, the action was dismissed without conducting
an inquiry although the complaint presents an arguable basis in law and
contains unfanciful facts.
Because we believe a district judge, on this record, could not properly conclude
that Moreland's chances of ultimate success in this civil rights action are slight,
we find an abuse of discretion in the district court's dismissal of Moreland's